Judge Rules for Muslim in Atheist Assault


Christina posts over at JT’s place about an appalling case in Pennsylvania, where a judge has dismissed assault charges against a Muslim man after he attacked an atheist wearing a Muhammad costume during a parade. And he did so while blaming the victim for having provoked the attack. Here’s a local TV report on the ruling:

And here’s what the assailants attorney had to say:

R. Mark Thomas represented Elbayomy and applauds the judge.

“I think this was a good dressing down by the judge,” he said. “The so-called victim was the antagonist and we introduced evidence that clearly showed his attitude toward Muslims. The judge didn’t do anything I wouldn’t have done if I was in that position.”

His attitude toward Muslims is of absolutely no relevance to the case. He was either assaulted or he was not, period. Judge Mike Martin should be under investigation for his behavior in this case and this audio will show why. At one point he asks, “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm? Or was it his intent to try and have the offensive situation negated?” But that simply doesn’t matter. You don’t get to assault someone to “negate” an “offensive situation.” You don’t have a right to assault someone because you’re offended by them. And a judge should damn well know that.

The defendant admitted to assaulting him, said that he tried to rip the sign off and grabbed his beard. In his testimony, he said that he did it to show his son how to respect every religion. Yes, he’s that nuts. And then he actually called 911 and reported the victim because he thought he was breaking the law by insulting his religion. Yes, he’s that nuts. And his attorney argued that since his real intent was to protect his religious feelings, there was no assault.

The judge’s statements start about 29 minutes in to the video below. He says, for example, that in many Muslim countries the victim would be put to death for what he did. Yes, he would. But this is America, where we have the First Amendment. And if the judge doesn’t understand that, he should be removed from the bench immediately and with extreme prejudice.

Comments

  1. glenmorangie10 says

    The real victims here are the radical Christian theocrats who rail against both creeping Sharia-ism in the U.S.A. and the rise of secularism and atheism. Now they have to deal with a case that pits an activist judge who favours Islam versus a militant atheist who mocks religion? That’s just not fair.

  2. The Lorax says

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. How does a judge get away with this shit? If this doesn’t get appealed, it’s basically saying it’s okay to beat the shit out of anyone who insults your ideology. I wish I had a better phrase for “this is a bad thing”.

  3. pyrobryan says

    Is that judge for real? So, if some guy on the street is wearing a sign that says “The end is near. Repent.” I can assault him for calling me a sinner and offending me? If someone hands me a pamphlet or a flier for their church I can assault them for insulting me by saying that whatever I’m doing with my life, I’m doing it wrong by not attending their church or believing in their flavor of religion?

  4. eoraptor013 says

    While IN(no longer)AL, I’m sure there’s no way in hell this ruling stands on appeal. I don’t know about the judge being investigated, but I’ll place a tidy wager he’s going to get dressed down in the appellate ruling.

    1st Amendment? What 1st Amendment. I don’t gotta show you no stinkin’ ammendments!

  5. David C Brayton says

    Wow, if I lived anywhere near Pennsylvania, I’d be the victim’s pro bono lawyer in an instant. Hopefully, the DA will appeal the dismissal.

  6. Randomfactor says

    I REALLY wish the Mohammad-clad guy had been a fundamentalist Christian, for the headsploding trifecta.

  7. frog says

    I assume that the atheists will all dress as Mohammad next year?

    That would certainly be interpretable as deliberate provocation. However, it would still be protected by the 1st Amendment.

    This judge should be removed from office.

  8. glenmorangie10 says

    Judge, with respect to the victim’s actions:

    “But, you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of your first amendment rights.”

    Can someone explain to me how a sentence like this can end up in a judge’s decision, without him having to expand on it? I haven’t studied American law, but it seems to me the victim either has the right or he doesn’t. The first amendment provides a right to expression. That right is not limitless. If one acts outside the bounds of the right set out in the first amendment, he doesn’t “have that right” to do that. You either have or don’t have a right. If the victim had the right to act in this way, then there is a corresponding duty on the part of society as a whole not to interfere with his right. When someone does interfere with his right, there is a duty on the state to protect his right.

    Correct me if any of that sounds far fetched. Otherwise, the cliff notes read: if the victim had the right, the judge should do his duty.

  9. Taz says

    What IS the recourse here? Can the victim in this case file a complaint? The prosecutor? Is that likely to happen?

  10. subbie says

    Conflicting language in the different reports that I’ve read makes it impossible to know exactly what happened, but if the judge dismissed this after trial, there can be no appeal. That would be double jeopardy. If it was dismissed at the pretrial stage, that can be appealed.

    The victim can file a civil suit and sue for damages. However, since he doesn’t appear to have been injured, I think any award he could win wouldn’t justify suit, unless he wanted to sue just for the principle.

  11. says

    Honest question: The charges can be re-filed upon a successful appeal without violating double-jeopardy? That only holds with someone who’s already gone through a trial, am I correct?

    Thanks.

  12. subbie says

    Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn or, if it’s a bench trial, when the first witness is sworn. If the judge dismissed after jeopardy attached, it cannot be appealed. I haven’t bothered to listen to the entire audio, so I don’t know what proceeded the dismissal.

  13. Chiroptera says

    subbie,

    This really does seem (to me, anyway) a pretty clear dereliction of duty by the judge.

    Is there any procedure short of impeachment where a higher authority can sanction this judge (if, indeed, he acted very improperly) to warn other courts to not do this again?

  14. pyrobryan says

    That judge needs to be removed from the bench. His blatant bias was evident in his opinion. He calls the testimony “he said, she said”, yet you have a sergeant from the police force testifying that the defendant admitted to the assault.

    Pathetic.

  15. subbie says

    cycleninja, happy to help. Where should I send my bill?

    Chiro, I’m not familiar with Pennsylvania law so I can’t say for sure. Most, if not all, states have some kind of board that disciplines the bench for misconduct. However, I think it’s highly unlikely that a judicial review board would take any action for something like this. It’s also possible that the chief judge for whatever district or county or jurisdiction that this mook sits in could talk to him This might be privately with no public notice at all of the conversation, up to perhaps some kind of censure that could go on his record.

    My mostly uneducated guess would be that nothing will happen, or perhaps just a chiding from the chief judge.

  16. says

    Yeah, an appeal is unlikely because of double jeopardy. But one would hope that there is some recourse for the court system to deal with the judge. Of if the judge is elected, at least that the bozo gets thrown out soon.

  17. eoraptor013 says

    One more thing: Dismissal, in and of itself, does NOT terminate jeopardy (Jeopardy must both attach, AND be terminated before Double Jeopardy applies). “Reprosecution is permitted and jeopardy continues against the defendant when a case is dismissed by the court at the defendant’s request for reasons other than sufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978). Don’t know the details (and the videos are blocked on this computer) but I’m guessing that the dismissal in this case was based on a matter of law, rather than a finding or sufficiency of fact. So, I’m fairly sure the prosecutor can appeal this decision.

  18. says

    Ugh. Between stuff like this and the crazies promoting rape culture by blaming the victims, I’m definitely sensing American society moving towards the idea that individuals are not responsible for their own actions.

  19. subbie says

    My quick and dirty search leads me to conclude that PA judges are elected, except for mid-term vacancies which are filled by judicial appointment.

    In a perfect world, any judge exhibiting the blatant bias that this guy did would be removed, or at least not re-elected. However, given that his offense was against the least trusted segment of society, and the fact that this isn’t a perfect world, I won’t hold my breath. The only thing that makes me think it might be more likely is his apparent admission that he’s muslim.

    How ironic would it be if bigotry against him for being a muslim would cost him his seat, but not his bigotry against atheists?

  20. subbie says

    eoraptor013, you are correct in your general statement of the law. I did listen to the judge’s speech near the end of the audio and I believe the judge dismissed the case because under his analysis, there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.

  21. Randomfactor says

    I would imagine a violation-of-civil-rights suit might be brought against the judge.

    A more effective (though less principled) action might be a campaign against the judge’s reelection stressing how his religion led him to make such a ruling in violation of the law. I say “less principled” because it would involve waving a red flag in front of some really awful voters.

  22. frankboyd says

    Good grief. I knew things were bad, but I didn’t think they were quite that bad.

    The judge should be fired immediately.

  23. says

    No appeal.

    I’m a lawyer, I know the victim, and I’m personally familiar with the case.

    It was before a District Justice, which in PA is considered the “minor judiciary”. Some states call them Justices of the Peace. He’s elected, but he’s not a lawyer. He gets some training, but not much. He hears, as the primary finder of fact, only minor summary criminal cases, traffic cases and small civil claims. He acts as the preliminary judge in major crimes only to determine if there is prima facia evidence that a crime has been committed, after which he kicks the case upstairs to the DA for prosecution.

    The defendant was not charged with assault (though IMO he should have been, among other charges). He was charged with harassment, which is common in these types of cases. The cop has the authority to decide on the initial charges, and will often choose a lessor charge. In this case he only charged him with the one count of harassment.

    Since Judge Martin was the primary finder of fact, this was THE trial, and he was empowered to determine guilt or innocence. He chose the latter. Jeopardy attached, and there is no appeal. The cop was the actual prosecutor in the case. He should have charged higher (i.e. assault, or disruption of assemblages) but he chose not to. There’s really nothing more to be done about THIS case.

    He could file a civil complaint for damages, but really, it’s not worth the time and effort, because he wasn’t harmed. It’s too bad one has to actually be harmed or killed before they do anything.

    I just wonder if the judge would have ruled as he did if the crime had been murder, which given the history of Islamic reaction to blasphemy like this, it very well could have been.

    The Defendant’s son would have been proud.

  24. says

    Thanks, SI. So the only real option is to vote the moron out of office next time. And I suspect that will happen because this is one of the few areas where liberals and conservatives will agree that what he did was appalling.

  25. mrbongo says

    @W. Kevin Vicklund

    wow, it was a non-story when I was posting it first in the other thread, and not I have to ‘eat it’ because Ed (good for him) posts it here.

    You’re just a very weird person Kevin.

    I have nothing to ‘eat’, I’m glad Ed is willing to post this story about a self-admitted Muslim judge (yes, in the video he says he is Muslim) who let’s a Muslim off for attacking someone who insulted Islam.

  26. subbie says

    I’ve looked into it a bit further. Apparently in Pennsylvania, they have a level of the judiciary called Magisterial District Court. Judges there are not even required to be lawyers, but if they are not, they must take some kind of instructional course and pass an exam. Unless there’s more than one Judge Mark Martin in PA, this guy may not even be a lawyer.

    http://www.ccpa.net/directory.aspx?EID=101

    I have no more information about him than that, so he might be a lawyer, but there’s at least the possibility that he’s not.

    Not that lawyers and judges can’t be as biased as this guy is, but I would think that an education in the law would tend to at least reduce the level of ignorance about matters of basic fairness. Well, at least I’d like to think that.

  27. Chiroptera says

    frankboyd, #28: I knew things were bad, but I didn’t think they were quite that bad.

    Then you need to read Ed’s blog more often. He’s pretty much always posting examples of judges, police officers, and prosecutors abusing their authority based on religious beliefs and/or political ideology.

    The only surprise I had in this case is that the judge is Muslim instead of the more usual (in the US) conservative Christian.

  28. says

    “if the judge doesn’t understand that, he should be removed from the bench immediately and with extreme prejudice.”—-I agree completely. I am very curious to see how the appeal goes. There is going to be an appeal right?

  29. mrbongo says

    @Ed in 30

    Another non-mutually exclusive option is to dress as zombie Mohamed next Halloween. It seems a little habituation is in order.

    I look forward to the day when I guy can dress up as zombie mohamed and walk down the street just as safe as the zombie pope walking next to him. The day when the cartoon network can show a cartoon mohamed right next to cartoon Joseph Smith, Jesus and other religious figures in a south park episode (which it can’t now due to threats of violence from some Muslim-Americans). A day when the woman who organized ‘everybody draw mohamed day’ can come out of hiding. A day when mohamed cartoons can actually be published by Yale Press in a book about the mohamed cartoon controversy. But that day is not now, as we live under de facto sharia due to threats of violence by muslims.

    interesting, the swedish cartoonist, lars vilks, who drew mohamed cartoons are once again attacked this past week by muslims in sweden during a lecture on the values of free speech.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/02/22/international/i001250S33.DTL

    the greatest threat to free speech in the west is posed by islam, not Christianity.

  30. mrbongo says

    @reasonbeing

    appeal by who? the state lost, double jeopardy applies, no appeal. muslim assailant walks free for attacking an atheist. the impunity is complete in the criminal stage now. of course, he can be sued in civil court.

  31. frankboyd says

    the greatest threat to free speech in the west is posed by islam, not Christianity.

    That’s certainly true – but there’s another side to this that you’re missing. Reactionary Islam is proving a massive force multiplier for the christian right in America and the way, way nastier movements we’ve got back in the old world. So it’s something of a pincer movement.

  32. says

    subbie

    You’re right about the Magisterial District Court System. That’s what it’s called.

    I don’t believe he’s a lawyer. I was before him once, and my memory says (not always infallible)that he’s an ex-cop, but don’t hold me on that. Many DJ’s come out of the ranks of the police. They tend to be very pro-cop, so one would have expected him to lean towards the testimony of this cop, who probably appears before him on a regular basis. Cop credibility is very important at this level, though that’s not to say they always side with the cops. Sometimes they side with their constituents, and the victim was not one of his constituents. The defendant was.

    In cases like this, though, you’d like them to side with the law.

  33. Chiroptera says

    mrbongo, #36: the greatest threat to free speech in the west is posed by islam, not Christianity.

    I agree that we should be rightly horrified that we cannot make cartoons lampooning historical figures because some random guy might punch our lights out.

    But what do you think of the US Christian Right’s attempts to use the power of the state to deny women proper health care or, at the very least, require them to be raped in order to get it?

    Don’t answer here; Ed already has posts on that very topic. Since you’re concerned (correctly in my opinion) about the assault on our liberties by the Religious Right, I’d be interested in seeing your opinions in the comment sections of those posts!

  34. harold says

    I REALLY wish the Mohammad-clad guy had been a fundamentalist Christian, for the headsploding trifecta.

    No, no, no. If a Muslim had attacked a Christian, he would have been sent to Guantanamo for “terrorism”.

    What the judge is trying to set up here is a precedent that will allow Christians, who are much more numerous in the US, to attack atheists who “insult Christianity”.

    You see, if he had found this Muslim guy guilty based on this idiotic and obnoxious but relatively non-violent assault, then when Billy Bob Born Again takes a baseball bat and beats the brains out of someone for “insulting Jesus”, this case might work as a precedent against Billy Bob.

    But now the precedent is “even Muslims can attack atheists”. Obviously, then, to many minds, if even a Muslim can do it, then how much more okay for Christians to do it.

    The hierarchy is, Christians can beat anybody, Muslims are “terrorists” if they beat Christians but within their rights if they beat atheists, and atheists are just getting what they deserve.

    For full disclosure I am not religious but do not self-identify as “atheist”, and I am personally not interested in atheist conventions, parades, and so on. But I am extremely disgusted by violence justified by religion.

  35. mrbongo says

    Chiroptera quiried “But what do you think of the US Christian Right’s attempts to use the power of the state to deny women proper health care or, at the very least, require them to be raped in order to get it?”

    It’s awful and should be opposed.

    But we live in a nation where we can lampoon the christian right on television – it happens all the time on south park, the daily show, etc. but we can’t lampoon or even depict mohamed because of death threats and attacks by muslims in this country. it’s defacto sharia. this self-restricted state is so much worse as the radical religious xtian proposed agenda as it is already imposed and we live under it. south park can’t show its cartoon, zombie Mohamed got assaulted and let off by a muslim judge, cartoonists live in hiding and are attacked when speak in public, etc. etc. etc. women still have access to birth control, they don’t have access to free speech that contradicts islam, i.e. safely mock mohamed in public. just ask the woman who organized everybody draw mohamed day on facebook, oh wait… she is in hiding in the U.S..

    oh and if you complain about it, chiroptera, ian gould and demmocommie call you a racist islamophobe.

  36. says

    An interesting question was posed today to me by the victim:

    The local news report showed a photograph of him dressed like Mohammed. Ed has a picture of him up there. ^

    Did the TV channel (and Ed) commit blasphemy?

  37. frankboyd says

    mr bongo, again, can’t disagree with you there, but the truth is that there is also that powerup to be worried about.

  38. Ben P says

    February 23, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    Thanks, SI. So the only real option is to vote the moron out of office next time. And I suspect that will happen because this is one of the few areas where liberals and conservatives will agree that what he did was appalling.

    While I have no knowledge specifically about Pennslyvania this is generally correct. Except for an appeal (or other appellate like relief) there are almost no remedies against a judge who rules the way you don’t like (even if that ruling is flat wrong and/or really dumb.) Where the result is a criminal case being dismissed, there’s really no remedy whatsoever because jeopardy has likely attached.

    However, there is one other possibility.

    A quick search revealed the Pennsylvania court of judicial discipline.

    http://www.cjdpa.org/

    I suspect that’s very similar to what my state calls the “judicial discipline commission.” Judges are obligated to follow certain ethical rules. If they violate this rules they can be subject to professional discipline.

    I doubt this case really qualifies, but if someone were really adamant about pursuing something that’s probably where you’d do it.

  39. says

    But that day is not now, as we live under de facto sharia due to threats of violence by muslims.

    Ah, now I see how you’re trying to make this evidence that Sharia law has arrived in America (which is why you were criticized in the other thread, not that this was a “non-story”): it’s de facto Sharia.

    The problem with that is that this is one judge and one decision, which (although very problematic) is very unlikely to have any more widespread implications. There’s no precedent created here, and the judge doesn’t appear to have cited any relevant law or precedent saying that one’s free speech can be limited by dismissing cases of assault against them when they offend others.

    The rest of what you say – Molly Norris in hiding, not being able to depict Mohammad – is of course bad (the heckler’s veto), but it’s not Sharia except by the very loosest definition of the term. And I’m not sure what you suppose should occur to stop this: outlaw Islam? Arrest Muslims as potential hecklers? That sounds awfully like killing the First Amendment to protect our First Amendment rights, which – as you might guess – is at best counterproductive.

  40. Chiroptera says

    mrbongo, #42: But we live in a nation where we can lampoon the christian right on television – it happens all the time on south park, the daily show, etc. but we can’t lampoon or even depict mohamed because of death threats and attacks by muslims in this country.

    I dunno. Maybe. But are you wondering why I comment under a pseudonym? I’ll give you a hint: it isn’t the Muslims I’m afraid of pissing off.

  41. laurentweppe says

    Ah, now I see how you’re trying to make this evidence that Sharia law has arrived in America

    You know, I’ve lost all naiveté about people claiming “Sharia is already here!!!!” a long time ago: at its core, this claim is similar to the old “The Jews have already taken over“: a lie used to disguise an authoritarian (at best) drive as a principled position
    *

    You don’t have a right to assault someone because you’re offended by them.

    So, if a judge clear abuse of power offends someone, that person cannot beat the judge to a pulp? I mean, the most amusing thing is that, if followed to its logical conclusion, Judge Martin’s argument would mean that if someone did actually beat him up after being “offended” by his ruling, that person should not be condemned.

  42. Chiroptera says

    Okay, I just watched the ABC news clip.

    Funny thing: when Mr. Elbayomy’s religious rights are threatened by the Christian Right (as they inevitably will be), guess who’s going to be among the first to help protect them? That’s right: Mr. Perce and the other atheists!

  43. says

    Correction to your description, Ed: the police officer Sgt. Curtis says that Talaaq initially admitted to having “laid hands” on Perce, but when Talaaq himself is on the stand he denies having done any such thing. He says he had no physical contact with Perce, but told him to stop parading. When Perce refused, Talaaq called the police.

  44. says

    Dammit I wish Virginia was in Pennsylvania!

    If it was, I could go kick the crap out of anyone who voted to pass the government-sponsored rape bill and not get in trouble for it.

    Foiled again ><

    I guess I'll have to be content with shaking my fist at the sky.

  45. eigenperson says

    I think the only thing to do is to organize a protest. How does 200 people dressed as Mohammed sound?

  46. says

    But we live in a nation where we can lampoon the christian right on television – it happens all the time on south park, the daily show, etc. but we can’t lampoon or even depict mohamed because of death threats and attacks by muslims in this country. it’s defacto sharia. this self-restricted state is so much worse as the radical religious xtian proposed agenda as it is already imposed and we live under it. south park can’t show its cartoon, zombie Mohamed got assaulted and let off by a muslim judge, cartoonists live in hiding and are attacked when speak in public, etc. etc. etc. women still have access to birth control, they don’t have access to free speech that contradicts islam, i.e. safely mock mohamed in public. just ask the woman who organized everybody draw mohamed day on facebook, oh wait… she is in hiding in the U.S..

    I hate to tell you this, but Southpark, the Daily Show, etc. frequently make fun of Muslims. Not as much as Christians, but maybe that has more to do with the fact that Christians (at least a subset of Christians) are responsible for a ton more horseshit in the US than Muslims. SO I know the idea that everyone’s all afraid of ticking off Muslims in this country appeals to you, try not to make shit up to support your claims.

    Of course, you’re right about deaththreats. Christians never use deaththreats. They never shot abortion doctors or use firebombs. Nope it’s those Muslims that can’t take a joke.

  47. Homo Straminus says

    When I ran across this story last night, I didn’t know mrbongo had (I guess?) been railing about it earlier.

    I will note that it’s pretty funny for him/her to in one breath note that South Park lampoons Christianity and in the next that “we can’t lampoon or even depict mohamed because of death threats and attacks by muslims in this country.” Uh…you even know what South Park is, dude? They ain’t got much reverence for Muhammad. Relevant link. I thought the unedited version eventually showed, but I’m sleepy and don’t immediately see supporting evidence.

    Violence committed purely in the name of ANY dogma should be rejected. We should soundly reject the idea that some random believer in religion X can get off from (harassing? assaulting? I guess it’s murky here) any (non)believer in religion X/Y! People get to have beliefs. People get to express beliefs. They don’t get to use violence against those who disagree with their beliefs. This is hardly controversial.

     

    I’m disheartened that it looks like simple legal recourse to this is unavailable. And no, mrbongo, I don’t blame creeping sharia.

  48. subbie says

    I also have this sneaking suspicion that part of the reason the “Judge” ruled as he did was because there was no injury. His “reasoning” may have been something along the lines of, “Some rude atheist prick was acting outrageously and a rightfully offended Muslim simply pointed out how offensive he was being–no harm no foul.”

    Maybe that’s just me being unduly hopeful.

  49. mrbongo says

    @Homo Straminus

    Hey man, what planet do you live on? Sure south park wanted to lampoon mohamed, but then was threatened with death by Muslims and censored by its network.

    ‘South Park’ Episode Altered After Muslim Group’s Warning

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.html

    South Park’s Depiction Of Muhammad Censored AGAIN

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/south-park-mohammed-censo_n_547484.html

    Seriously, where were you that you missed all this? And blow in here all self-righteous with no clue as to such a well known current event?

  50. mrbongo says

    @Dana you said “I hate to tell you this, but Southpark…”

    hmmm, interesting you actually a case off censorship do to de facto sharia enforced through threats of violence as an argument that mocking Mohamed isn’t censored in the U.S.?

    also, here is a query for you. Can you name any university presses that self-censored images of jesus out of fear of violence from Santorum followers? Nope, well Yale Press did just that recently except replace jesus with mohadmed.

    Why did Yale University Press remove images of Mohammed from a book about the Danish cartoons?

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2009/08/yale_surrenders.html

    de facto sharia in the u.s. enforced by threats from muslims.

    my contention stands.

    Also, just remember, all that anti-abortion, anti-birth control shit also find support with Muslims here as well, just throw in hijab and sartorial gender apartheid on top the worst christianty has to offer in gender oppression.

  51. mrbongo says

    @TCC said: “And I’m not sure what you suppose should occur to stop this: outlaw Islam? Arrest Muslims as potential hecklers? ”

    What a weird false equivalence between a ‘heckler’ and someone who threatens murder. heckling is not murder.

    No, not at all. How about giving Islam the same social derision as many in here do Christianty for starters. How about not screaming “islamphobe!” (a made up neologism to control discourse) and “racist!” (what race is Islam?) if someone complains about constant and repeating Muslim threats of violence in the U.S. for depicting Mohamed and thus violating a tenet of Sharia.

  52. mrbongo says

    @W. Kevin Vicklund #62

    And I’ll ask you why you see threatening to murder a cartoonist is the equivalent as being upset about public nudity?

  53. mrbongo says

    @W. Kevin Vicklund

    I do have a problem, but apparently you’re not smart enough to differentiate between prudish censorship of tits, and death threat censorship of exercise one’s right basic free speech.

  54. dan4 says

    I’m curious if the very premise behind the claim that Judge Martin’s (horrible) decision reflects Sharia Law is a correct one; in other words, under Sharia Law, is it commanded (or at least allowed) for a Muslim to physically assault someone else wearing a Muhammad costume?

  55. mmfwmc says

    Hey Ed, sorry to go completely off topic but you might want to look at what your pop up provider is doing. You said:
    (http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/01/21/peter-grant-steals-from-ftb/)

    We have one company that handles all of our on-page ads and another that handles the pop-under ads. I allow it because A) it is a single pop-up that does not have any autoplay audio or video, does not redirect to another site, does not prompt you if you’re sure you want to close it, and so forth. It clicks off immediately. And each visitor
    only sees it once per day. And B) It pays well.

    The current pop up that I’m getting has a message box that brings it to the top of the screen and auto-plays audio. It’s really annoying. Weirdly, I can’t even tell you what the ad is for – I just reflexively closed it while dying a little on the inside.

    I haven’t started blocking your pop-ups yet, because I appreciate your work and want you to get all the ad revenue you can, but I swear that this pop up is enough to make me do so if I see it again.

    Heh, I sound like a hostage taker, so I may as well do it properly – ***if you don’t fix this, my next correspondence will have two spaces after every full stop.***

    Please talk to your provider and get back to the types of pop-ups you had before, so that I can continue to support your excellent site to the full).

  56. says

    Dear Mr. Bongosockpuppetfuckwitdouchebagassholeracistislamophobepieceofshit:

    The judge is both an idiot and a fucking jerk. You should ask him if you can join his none too exclusive club for dicks.

  57. says

    mrbongo wrote:

    How about giving Islam the same social derision as many in here do Christianty for starters.

    I do. But Islam just isn’t as much of an issue in the US as Christianity. 1% of the population is Muslim and they have almost zero political power. Christians, on the other hand, hold tremendous power and influence in the US and are thus a much more serious threat to our liberty in this country. Things are often different in other countries, of course, where hate speech laws (which I am a staunch critic of) can be used to silence criticism of Islam and where the Muslim population is far more radicalized than they are here. But I live in this country so that is the reality I address.

    How about not screaming “islamphobe!” (a made up neologism to control discourse) and “racist!” (what race is Islam?) if someone complains about constant and repeating Muslim threats of violence in the U.S. for depicting Mohamed and thus violating a tenet of Sharia.

    Same old false dichotomy. Muslim threats of violence are actually pretty rare in the US, though far more common in other countries (more so in many nations of Europe and infinitely worse in many Arabic countries, where apostasy and other “crimes” can get you killed). But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be condemned when it does. And when it does occur, I am entirely consistent in condemning it. I am on record repeatedly as saying that reactionary Islam — and that is not all Muslims, of course — is the most repressive and dangerous ideology in the world. So the notion that I think anyone who complains about Muslim threats of violence is an Islamophobe is nonsense. I absolutely support criticism of Islam and condemnation of the violent and totalitarian tendencies of some of its followers (like this idiot judge). Islamophobia comes in when people exaggerate the threat of “creeping Sharia” in this country, when they pretend that all Muslims are an existential threat to us, and when they try to deny Muslims the same rights they demand for themselves (like trying to prevent the building of mosques). People like Pam Geller, David Yerushalmi, Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney really are Islamophobes, not because they criticize Islam — obviously not, since I do that myself — but because they have built it up into an all-purpose boogeyman and cannot recognize that most Muslims in this country are not violent and reactionary (just as most Christians are not).

  58. says

    What a weird false equivalence between a ‘heckler’ and someone who threatens murder. heckling is not murder.

    I didn’t mean a literal heckler, you imbecile: I was using the term to refer to anyone who acts to restrict the free speech rights of others by threats, as it is used in the phrase “heckler’s veto” (a phrase I had already referenced).

  59. says

    dingojack:

    I’m gonna have to assume that your gentle rejoinder and Mr. TCC’s slightly less gentle reproof of Mr. Bongosockpuppetfuckwitdouchebagassholeracistislamophobepieceofshi’s comment re: “heckler’s veto” will result, equally, in his failure to read, understand and reflect upon the subject.

    Dear Mr. Bonghitgonzo,etc., etc.:

    Please go play in Pammy Gellar’s sty, you will be VERY welcome there.

  60. scienceavenger says

    What would the judge have ruled if the atheist had performed a little self-defense jiu jitsu and snapped the attacking fanatics arm? If the attack was supposedly justified, would the atheist then be guilty himself of assault? Are we really living in the world of a recent political cartoon where resisting being crucified makes one guilty of suppressing religious freedom?

  61. Anri says

    mrbongo:

    Ok, try this: list the top three major threats to basic civil rights in the US.
    Now, list their Muslim authors.

    In my opinion, I believe that cutting reasonable access to birth control is – and I know this is crazy talk – a bit more urgent of an issue than freedom to draw portraiture of religious figures. Denying basic health care to a segment of the population is a death threat without bothering with the whole ‘threat’ step. It’s just death.
    And who’s doing that again? Right.

    Oh, and since you’re going to be disingenuous about it, when you hear ‘racist’ in a discussion of Islam, replace it with ‘bigot’, you’ll get the gist. As in: if you paint all of Islam with the same brush, you might not be a racist. But you’re sure as heck a bigot.
    Better?

  62. Chiroptera says

    Anri, #72: In my opinion, I believe that cutting reasonable access to birth control is – and I know this is crazy talk – a bit more urgent of an issue than freedom to draw portraiture of religious figures.

    Especially since those who threaten cartoonists are recognized as criminals, they are forced to break the law to promote their views, and are thus subject to the attentions to our domestic security services.

    Those who threaten the well-being of women in the US are considered a legitimate part of the political establishment, are honored for it, and are attempting to use the power of the state to promote their ends.

    The closest analogy to the Islamic theocracy in Iran, and the closest analogy to Islamist thugs in Nigeria that we have in this country is…the Christian right.

    We should make a stand against oppresssion, and we should be against all forms of totalitarian, fascist ideology. But if we are to marshall our resources effectively, we must be able to prioritize the threats to our liberty correctly and we must be able to determine the best remedy against those threats.

    Right now, in the US, the biggest threat to our liberties that come from religious groups are the threat from rightwing Christians who have a profound effect on how the power of the state is used.

  63. frankboyd says

    Anri,

    As in: if you paint all of Islam with the same brush, you might not be a racist. But you’re sure as heck a bigot.

    Well, I sure hope that no one on these blogs is painting all Christianity with the same brush, or, worse still, all Christians. That’d never happen, right?

    Oh, wait…
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/episode_cciv_christianity_pois.php

    er…

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/the_warped_weird_world_of_chri.php

    Well at least there’s nothing about Christians as a group, ri-

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/christians_are_morbid_ghouls_n.php

    .
    ..

    Well, crap.

    For the record, I know that there are those people for whom an attack on Islam is a convenient mask for xenophobia. There are also a great many people for whom an attack on Christianity is a convenient mask for a hatred of the working class.

    Bill Maher, prime example. No, I’m not naming anyone here, you know who you are…

    Ed,

    But Islam just isn’t as much of an issue in the US as Christianity

    My european eyes may be jaded, but I know that no matter how much I attack religion, it won’t be a Christian who chops my head off. I also did not see the current inhabitant of the white house grovelling and snivelling for Bible burning, joined by Pentagon members, etc. etc.

  64. says

    I am always careful to point out that when I criticize the many absurdities and barbarities that often go with Christianity, I am not speaking of all Christians. I have too many Christian friends who stand shoulder to shoulder with me to fight against bigotry, hatred and stupidity to believe that the David Bartons and RJ Rushdoonys of the world speak for all Christians. I give exactly the same consideration to Muslims. I demand exactly the same consideration from others.

    My european eyes may be jaded, but I know that no matter how much I attack religion, it won’t be a Christian who chops my head off.

    But how is that relevant to me in the United States? The chances of me having my head chopped off by a Muslim are extraordinarily small. The chances of me having my rights violated because right wing Christian politicians pass laws to do so on the basis of the twisted morality of the Bible are 1 to 1. The examples are many and the threat is ongoing. It isn’t that Muslims beheading people isn’t bad; it’s incredibly bad and as repulsive as anything I can imagine. The outcome may be worse, but the chance of it happening is nearly zero, while the chances of Christians using the government to violate my rights is 100%. So that’s what I tend to focus on. It doesn’t mean I don’t discuss and condemn Muslim barbarism and repression, I do so often. But since I write primarily about political issues in the United States, where Christians have extraordinary power and Muslims have almost none, it should hardly be surprising that most of my attention is going to go to Christianity. That really shouldn’t be so difficult to understand.

    I also did not see the current inhabitant of the white house grovelling and snivelling for Bible burning, joined by Pentagon members, etc. etc.

    There is no groveling and sniveling, there is a legitimate apology being made for a terribly damaging action taken by the military. Can you name a single example of someone in the military burning a Bible? If they did, the uproar in the US would be immense. There would be congressional investigations and heads would roll. Again, you seem to be trapped in the false dichotomy of this non-existent double standard. I am all for the freedom to burn any book, including the Bible and the Quran; I hammered the city of Dearborn for violating the rights of anti-Muslim fanatic Terry Jones, even while disagreeing with him. But for the military to burn Qurans on a base in Afghanistan is just monumentally stupid and damaging of the efforts of soldiers there. The response by local Muslims is appalling and barbaric, but that doesn’t mean that burning those Qurans was a smart or rational thing to do. It wasn’t. And the pentagon is quite rightly trying to make amends before it causes more people to die.

  65. Chiroptera says

    frankboyd, #79: Well, I sure hope that no one on these blogs is painting all Christianity with the same brush, or, worse still, all Christians.

    No one denies that there are people who are painting all Christians with the same broad brush.

    On the other hand, no one on FtB, not even PZ Myers, is painting all Christians with the same broad brush with an eye to using the power of the state to deny them their religious rights and the freedoms that they demand for themselves.

    That is the point about the Islamophobes. Not that they dislike Islam — heck, I suspect that most of us dislike Islam. Not that they falsely conflate all Muslims with the Islamist extremists — it’s wrong, but it’s up to them to decide who will be their friends and who they will trust. The problem with the Islamophobes is that they want to use the power of the state to deny Muslims the rights and privileges that they demand for themselves.

    All people who would use violence and force to get other people to live by their sectarian beliefs must be opposed.

    All people who advocate by legal means that people should be forced to live by their sectarian beliefs must be told in no uncertain terms that they are wrong.

    But people who are content to abide by the law, who would allow other people to decide to live their own lives according to their own principles, should not have to bear the burden of being punished for the crimes committed by other people, especially not other people in another country.

  66. Anri says

    frankboyd:

    Well, I sure hope that no one on these blogs is painting all Christianity with the same brush, or, worse still, all Christians. That’d never happen, right?

    I don’t recall having done so myself.
    Did you intend to point out where I did so, or does your little screed not actually apply to the person you’re replying to?

    For the record, I know that there are those people for whom an attack on Islam is a convenient mask for xenophobia. There are also a great many people for whom an attack on Christianity is a convenient mask for a hatred of the working class.

    And those people are bigots.
    I’m sorry, did you have some sort of point?

    Bill Maher, prime example. No, I’m not naming anyone here, you know who you are…

    Um, ok, I was making a point about someone attempting to weasel out of being called pregudiced by word-play between racist and bigot, but it’s really all about your opinion.
    Really.

    But Islam just isn’t as much of an issue in the US as Christianity
    My european eyes may be jaded, but I know that no matter how much I attack religion, it won’t be a Christian who chops my head off. I also did not see the current inhabitant of the white house grovelling and snivelling for Bible burning, joined by Pentagon members, etc. etc.

    I would imagine that, by a vast and overwhelming probability, no matter how much you attack religion, it won’t be anyone who chops your head off.
    Perhaps I’m wrong, being in the US and all. Maybe you’re in imminent danger of beheading at the merest utterance of blashpemy.
    Is… is that what you’re saying?

    People get brutalized by zealots when they are critical of the zealot’s beliefs. One major difference is places where the zealots are acting outside of the law… and where they’re writing it.
    It’s illegal for your Muslim extremist to behead you.
    It’s illegal for my gay friends to get married.
    One’s undeniably more severe, but the other’s systemic.

  67. says

    Fuckedboy whined, “My european eyes may be jaded, but I know that no matter how much I attack religion, it won’t be a Christian who chops my head off.”

    I had no fucking idea that Madamae LaFarge and Robepierre were mooooooooooooooooooslims!

    Oh, wait, that was about radical politics JUST LIKE THE FUCKING JIHADIS IN THE MADRASSAS. Okay, Frank, thanks for your input; go back and jerk off to your Pam Gellar poster.

  68. mrbongo says

    uh demmcommie is in da hizouse! cease all reason, and initiate baseless irrational screedifying ya’ll!

  69. mrbongo says

    @anri said “It’s illegal for my gay friends to get married.”

    Not in my state, and it’s changing fast in many other states as well among the non-Muslim population. Muslims to be fair are liberal on certain marriage practices, like you can marry a 9 year and more than one wife!

  70. mrbongo says

    @chiroptera

    hey, aren’t you the one who won’t give his/her name because the ‘xtians’ are going to send you to Guantanamo for posting in Ed’s comment thread? Yes, I do believe if I scroll up a little on this very thread you were making that craaaaaaaaaaaazy pants argument just yesterday.

    Weird, crazy, … chiroptera. if you need an irrational view of the current state of the united states, just go to chiroptera, according to him/her we are basically the equivalent of living under the taliban.

  71. laurentweppe says

    But how is that relevant to me in the United States? The chances of me having my head chopped off by a Muslim are extraordinarily small

    Well: to tell the truth, the chance of an European to have his head choped off by a Muslim is also laughably small: smaller than the chance of being, say, killed by a manifesto writting racial purity-obessed christian far-right thug.
    *

    The chances of me having my rights violated because right wing Christian politicians pass laws to do so on the basis of the twisted morality of the Bible are 1 to 1

    Now that’s something interesting: unlike it’s american counterpart, the european far-right (which managed to become part of the governing coalition of several european countries in recent years) is prioritizing its targeting of the minorities so much that they seldom try to overtly violate the rights of the dominant group, and in most cases defend policies specifically tailored to make the life of the minorities as miserable as possible while sparing Whites. So of course, you eventually end up with people saying something stupid like “Oh, far-right Christians in Europe are completely harmless: they’re not even trying to hurt Me

  72. Chiroptera says

    mrbongo, #87: hey, aren’t you the one who won’t give his/her name because the ‘xtians’ are going to send you to Guantanamo for posting in Ed’s comment thread?

    No.

    Now that we got that cleared up, did you want to explain why we in the US should be more afraid of Muslims than Christians?

    Or was that the topic? Like you, I got kind of distracted.

  73. dingojack says

    MrBongo – ” Muslims to be fair are liberal on certain marriage practices, like you can marry a 9 year and more than one wife!”

    Citations required (particularly relating to Muslims in the US).

    Dingo.
    ——
    This year, about 50 to 70 persons will be attacked by sharks, worldwide.
    How many US citizens have been beheaded this year in the US by Muslims, in round numbers.
    Do you think the number of Muslim-induced beheadings in the US will be greater or less than 50 to 70?

    OMG! Creeping Sharkria! @@

  74. dingojack says

    The only country to apply decapitation is Saudi Arabia. In 2010 there were 27 executions, less than half of the number recorded in 2009 (at least 69), but the number of decapitations increased significantly in 2011 (34 on July 25)“.
    Death Sentence: More Hangings and Decapitations for Sharia – ANSAmed, August 4, 2011.

    A total of 130 or ca. 4.7905115 per million.

    Texas executed 54 people in the same period (2009-11). (Wikipedia) or ca. 2.086231 per million.

    Texas: only 43.55% as brutal as Saudi Arabia!

    Dingo
    —-
    see here
    US = 110 /Saudi Arabia = 34 executions [in 2010]

  75. says

    Mr. Bonguphisass sez:

    “are robespierre and his cohorts still active? nope, just a bunch of islamists decapitating folks.

    oh here’s a link dumbass. and it ain’t anyone but muslim still doing it.

    why just this week, islamist beheaded four people….

    http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/21/taliban-behead-four-alleged-spies-official.html

    Obviously the comment about them and the french revolutionaries being radical political zealots flies right over his head–no mean feat when one considers how far up his ass it is.

    You do know, btw, dumbfuck, that you give yourself away when you use the same language, sentence structure and bogus theories that your other sockpuppets use.

    You’re a racist, islamaphobic piece-of-shit, in all of your various iterations.

  76. angryvet says

    From: http://www.ccpa.net/directory.aspx?EID=101
    Mark W. Martin
    Magisterial District Judges
    507 N. York St.
    Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

    Phone: 717.766.4575
    Fx: 717.766.2238

    Office Hours:
    Monday – Tuesday, Thursday – Friday: 8:30 am – 4:30 pm
    Wednesday: 8:30 am – 6:00 pm

    I encourage all freedom lovers to express your thoughts directly to the misguided Mr. Martin. He is a disgrace to veterans and Americans.

  77. angryvet says

    An open letter to Judge Martin:

    Dear Mr. Martin,

    I read with intense disgust the news story about your decision to throw out charges against a muslim man who attacked an athiest in the conduct of his free speech demonstration.

    You say that Mr. Elbayomy was the victim of being offended by Mr. Perce’s public demonstration, and that this offense justified Mr. Elbayomy’s actions. In making your decision, you disregard not just Mr. Perce’s firmly-established and hallowed freedom of speech, but his right to not be assaulted by another civilian.

    You are clearly not a lawyer, and you clearly do not deserve to be a judge. It makes no difference that you are a muslim, or that you have lived in muslim countries where assholes kill each other over religious arguments and disputes. We are NOT a muslim country or even a religious country, we are a secular country. Religious offense does not constitute justification for assault, regardless of where one is.

    I find it very sad that you, like myself, are a veteran of the conflicts in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Your actions bring shame to proud veterans everywhere. I feel sadness every time I learn that a fellow servicemember has desecrated a Quran or harmed or offended the civilians we strive to protect. But you revealed to me a new type of disgust: that which I feel against a veteran who desecrates our cherished American freedoms. You clearly never learned what it meant to protect freedom, because here you are at home, trying to destroy it in the name of your stupid faith.

    Let me make this as clear as possible: FUCK YOUR RELIGION, AND FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE.

    As offended as I am by your conduct and your speech from the bench, I am a civilized person who knows that your speech does nullify your right to safety. I would consider myself a monster to believe anything less. I hope your imaginary, zombie, friend in the sky, Mohammed, helps you reconsider your embarassing, shameful, and evil decision.

    Sincerely,
    “AngryVet”

  78. says

    AngryVet:

    Not that I don’t agree with most of what you say about Martin…your mashnote to him has a couple of problematic clauses:

    “but his right to not be assaulted by another civilian.”

    should probably read “by anyone”–assault is, under the law, an illegal act.

    and

    “As offended as I am by your conduct and your speech from the bench, I am a civilized person who knows that your speech does nullify your right to safety.”

    I think that the word “not” needs to be between “does” and “nullify”.

    I think I probably would not write a note like yours to a sitting judge, just on the off chance that he might have you in his docket some day (yeah, I know it’s unlikely) or consider it a threat of some sort with all the bother that sort of thing entails.

    I think, “Dear Judge Douchebag…” would be more along the lines of what I might write.

  79. angryvet says

    Yes- thanks for catching those typos. Your comments are appreciated!

    On another note, I read somewhere today that the phone secretary has been telling callers that Judge Martin is NOT a muslim. Sorry I don’t have the citation. It seems to contradict what is being reported on transcript. Anybody else curious about this?

    (PS I did find a reference, have no idea who this Volokh guy is but the Judge deserves to have his say: http://volokh.com/2012/02/25/zombie-mohammed-judge-responds/#comments)

    PPS I may update my letter but the end result of the dismissal is still pretty outrageous.

  80. frankboyd says

    To all the people who think they are being clever, and think that Muslim imposed censorship isn’t a problem

    I will make the following bet. Let’s take liberal London. I will walk around all day with a sign denouncing Christ and Christianity. You do it with one denouncing Islam and Muhammad.

    Any takers?

    You can ask Theo van Gogh how brilliantly that goes. You can ask many many people who have to live in hiding because of this.

    So please stop being so damn glib and dismissive, okay? It makes you look like you think.

    Anri,

    And those people are bigots.

    And I am really sure you have popped over to Pharyngula to call PZ on’t.

    Ed,

    . It doesn’t mean I don’t discuss and condemn Muslim barbarism and repression, I do so often. But since I write primarily about political issues in the United States, where Christians have extraordinary power and Muslims have almost none, it should hardly be surprising that most of my attention is going to go to Christianity. That really shouldn’t be so difficult to understand.

    I’ll take it from you; I won’t take it from many on your community. I have not forgotten that big-bad-I’m-not-frightened-of-offending-the-religious-PZ ran shrieking for cover during the Muhammad cartoon crisis.

    I freely declare my prejudices in this matter, and am not shy about saying that they arise from living in Europe. Even correcting for that, it still looks to me like this overstated. Yankee Christianity cannot even prevent themselves from being ordered to pay for contraception, if they don’t believe in it. If they can’t draw the line at paying for someone else’s condoms, they can’t be that scary. Just noisy.

    There is no groveling and sniveling, there is a legitimate apology being made for a terribly damaging action taken by the military.

    Gussy it up all you want comrade, but you’re only fooling those who want to be fooled. Imagine the following scenario: Military burns bibles, Southern christians go ballistic and lynch people, and, say, President Bush goes all moist, and mutters stuff about “sensitiviy”. Would anyone here regard that as anything but craven crawling before religious barbarism?

    Can you name a single example of someone in the military burning a Bible? If they did, the uproar in the US would be immense.

    Comrade, bother too “use the google”:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/

    Yes, there have been a great deal wind on the subject, but no one has been killed for it. Get real. Get. Real.

  81. dingojack says

    Cranky Franky – I note with pleasure your eager condemnation of the state of Texas specifically, and the US generally –
    not.
    Can you spell hypocrite?
    Dingo
    —–
    Murder rate (per 100,000 2007) in
    a) Saudi Arabia 1.04
    b) US 5.06
    c) UK 1.46
    d) Australia 1.35 (come for the dangerous wildlife; stay for the shallow grave)
    e) Canada 1.80
    f) France 1.30
    g) NZ 1.54

    Yep, them crazy Saudis, murdering manics.

  82. Chiroptera says

    frankboyd, #102: Let me see if I’ve got this straight – it’s considered serious commentary on this supposedly “freethought” blog to defend Saudi Arabia?

    I dunno, but it seems to be considered “serious rebuttal” among some commentators to twist other peoples’ words.

    If you have a problem with reading for comprehension, then you have my condolences.

    If that was meant to be humorous but it misfired, well, I can empathize with that, too.

    On the other hand, if that really was a deliberate attempt to distract from the actual point, I have to warn you that people can scroll up and read the actual comment to which you’re responding. And when that happens, you look kind of silly.

  83. dingojack says

    Because your ‘points’ (as you are pleased to all them) are irrelevant, misleading and – well – pointless.

    Since Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim country that beheads people, at a rate that is barely double that of the (supposedly) ‘civilised’ state of Texas (and around 31% of the US as a whole), will you decry the latter as ‘barbarous’ too? Or are you too rusted onto your ‘all Muslims are evul’ jag?
    How about the those numbers of beheadings by Muslims in America, got any figures on that – eh Cranky Franky?

    Nah , didn’t think so.

    Dingo

  84. dingojack says

    Also I note you have not made any kind of connection between the ruling of one (non) judge who may or may not be a Muslim and a system of laws that regulates the conduct of private business between individuals who are Muslims (Sharia).
    Got a link there Sparky, or are you just pissing in the wind?
    Dingo

  85. dingojack says

    And while you’re fretting about unnecessary deaths:
    How many died last year because of:
    a) lung cancer
    b) heart disease
    c) breast cancer
    d) car accidents
    e) starvation
    f) dysentery
    g) malaria
    h) yellow fever
    i) HIV/AIDS
    i) thirst
    and so on…
    And yet you’re focused on 43 or so deaths a year, do you think the above caused more or less deaths?*

    Dingo
    —–
    * bear in mind, the number of shark attacks worldwide in the same period is around 150 to 210 persons. (115.38 to 161.54% of Saudi beheadings in the same period).

  86. frankboyd says

    Also I note you have not made any kind of connection between the ruling of one (non) judge who may or may not be a Muslim a

    Er, a judge who passes down a ruling is a “non judge”. A judge who says “I am a Muslim” “may or may not be a Muslim”

    After five thousand years, this might rise to the level of the cretinous.

  87. dingojack says

    Maybe, Cranky Franky, you should do a little investigating.
    A) Is this guy a Judge? Nope he’s an ex-cop who was elected into the (very junior) position of Magistrate.
    B) Is this guy a Muslim? Well, as it seems, no.

    Less hyperventilating over threats that are less than the chance (worldwide) of being attacked by a shark, and more in actually investigating the truth of the matter would be useful.

    Dingo

  88. says

    Can you name a single example of someone in the military burning a Bible? If they did, the uproar in the US would be immense.

    Comrade, bother too “use the google”:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/

    Yes, there have been a great deal wind on the subject, but no one has been killed for it. Get real. Get. Real.

    Are you seriously equating burning a book in protest with burning a book in order to dispose of it to avoid the appearance of proselytizing?

    If so, a follow-up question: What kind of a fucking idiot are you? (Don’t worry about answering; it’s a rhetorical question.)

  89. says

    Er, a judge who passes down a ruling is a “non judge”. A judge who says “I am a Muslim” “may or may not be a Muslim”

    You may have missed the fact that the audio is not clear enough to tell definitively that the judge said “I am a Muslim” and the fact that his office has denied it. But then again, go with your prejudices; I’m sure that’ll work out great for you.

  90. says

    FuckfaceBoil sez:

    “@Ed,

    You certainly attract a mature and measured group of commentators here.”

    Indeed he says, shitstain, indeed he does. I am NOT one of those aurust persons. I work at, nay, I EXIST FOR, the purpose of inflicting as much verbal abuse as I’m capable of on preening, self-righteous popinjays such as you.

    Why you bein’ so upset? I mean you get to say shit that would get your ass hauled in for a little re-eduaction if you were in Spain in the 30’s, Germany or Japan in the 40’s (well, okay, the U.S., too), Russia in the 50’s–you know where this is going, yes?

    Don’t worry, be happy, or not. But do go fuck yourself.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply